The "Arthur Stone"
Grethe Bachmann
beautiful pictures of the castle ruins in the dramatic landscape. I image
in there is a special atmosphere on this place.
But now to this subject (which you might have dealt with in this ng before):
A small piece of slate was found in 1999 by an archaelogist Kevin Brady from
Glasgow University. He saw the words "Artognov" on the plate.What a moment!
The experts say that the style of the writing is certainly 6th century. And
the whole text "Pater Coliavificil Artognov" is translated to "Artognou,
father of the descendant of Coll had this built".
The plate was soon christened "The Arthur Stone".
Now - it was in 1999, and I have not read about it before, but maybe some of
you
know what else has happened around The Arthur Stone??
Grethe Bachmann .
greywolf
<grethe....@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>I went to AltaVista for info about Tintagel Castle. There were some
>beautiful pictures of the castle ruins in the dramatic landscape. I image
>in there is a special atmosphere on this place.
There is, especially on a cold and windy day!
>But now to this subject (which you might have dealt with in this ng before):
>A small piece of slate was found in 1999 by an archaelogist Kevin Brady from
>Glasgow University. He saw the words "Artognov" on the plate.What a moment!
>The experts say that the style of the writing is certainly 6th century. And
>the whole text "Pater Coliavificil Artognov" is translated to "Artognou,
>father of the descendant of Coll had this built".
>The plate was soon christened "The Arthur Stone".
>
>Now - it was in 1999, and I have not read about it before, but maybe some of
>you
>know what else has happened around The Arthur Stone??
>
>Grethe Bachmann .
>
As it was a team from Glasgow University that uncovered the piece of
slate with the name which, sadly is a long and twisted way away from
any derivation of Arthur, perhaps the university but more likely
English Heritage have it?
Basically all it proved is that some sort of activity was taking place
at the site around a given period - the castle itself is far too
modern for a 500's ish Arthur but _might_ have been built on an
earlier hillfort type pallisade.
greywolf
>>
>As it was a team from Glasgow University that uncovered the piece of
>slate with the name which, sadly is a long and twisted way away from
>any derivation of Arthur, perhaps the university but more likely
>English Heritage have it?
>Basically all it proved is that some sort of activity was taking place
>at the site around a given period - the castle itself is far too
>modern for a 500's ish Arthur but _might_ have been built on an
>earlier hillfort type pallisade.
Found this at the university website,
"For enquiries about the Tintagel dig
contact Kevin Brady
K.B...@archaeology.arts.gla.ac.uk "
John Greenall
then possible that one name used ethere before or after where similar to
Arthou such as "arthur".
It lends some credit to the story that Arthur was at tintagel.
I have a decent picture of the slate, where the scratched and chiselled
wording is clear to see, I haven't read of a british kigk been named coll,
the closest to this one is king coal.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a
myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
Gilbert Ryle (1900-76) British philosopher.
"greywolf" <ask...@answerin.NG> wrote in message
news:8s3qnt4e661f272kr...@4ax.com...
Heather Rose Jones
>
> I went to AltaVista for info about Tintagel Castle. There were some
> beautiful pictures of the castle ruins in the dramatic landscape. I image
> in there is a special atmosphere on this place.
>
> But now to this subject (which you might have dealt with in this ng before):
> A small piece of slate was found in 1999 by an archaelogist Kevin Brady from
> Glasgow University. He saw the words "Artognov" on the plate.What a moment!
> The experts say that the style of the writing is certainly 6th century. And
> the whole text "Pater Coliavificil Artognov" is translated to "Artognou,
> father of the descendant of Coll had this built".
> The plate was soon christened "The Arthur Stone".
Oh, yes -- the Artognou stone pops up on a rather regular basis. (If I
recall correctly, I was reading this newsgroup when the stone was found
-- quite a bit of excitement.)
It's rather unfortunate that the media continues to encourage the
association of the stone with Arthur, since the name on the stone is
"Arthognou", an entirely different name than Arthur. (The names are
about as similar as "Robert" and "Herbert".) But a lot of people have
never let the facts stand in the way of Arthur mania.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
horseman
almst 100% lack of grammar or punctuation, how old are you?? Please try
harder, as I said before some of your ramblings are potentially very
interesting but who in their right mind would take any notice of this sort
of inane rambling . .
"John Greenall" <john.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ljpc3$5am$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> It proovs
(spelling)
that names similar to "Arthur" where
(spelling)
in use at that time
(does it? well at least one!),
it is then possible that one name used ethere before or after where similar
to
> Arthou such as "arthur".
(What? does that make any sense to anyone?)
> It lends some credit to the story that Arthur was at tintagel.
(How? you have just contradicted yourself, at the best someone called Arthou
may have been at tintagel - see later post where Robert compared to Herbert)
> I have a decent picture of the slate, where the scratched and chiselled
> wording is clear to see, I haven't read of a british kigk been named coll,
> the closest to this one is king coal.
(Old King Cole was a merry old soul - must be true then, i read it in a
nursery rhyme)
greywolf
<john.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>It proovs that names similar to "Arthur" where in use at that time, it is
>then possible that one name used ethere before or after where similar to
>Arthou such as "arthur".
But surely there's ample proof that "similar" names existed at this
time, some a lot closer than Artognov?
>
>It lends some credit to the story that Arthur was at tintagel.
Or maybe a lot of credit to the fact that a person related to Coll was
there and carved an inscription to testify to their labours
>
>I have a decent picture of the slate, where the scratched and chiselled
Readily available, it shows a rough lettering as if hand etched with a
sharp point.
>wording is clear to see, I haven't read of a british kigk been named coll,
Perhaps the builder's ancestor wasn't a king?
>the closest to this one is king coal.
The merry old soul?
And when did this one reign?
You are joking.........aren't you?
Bert Olton
to five years ago, when Mr. Greenall and this newsgroup first
encountered each other, there was a great gnashing of teeth, but John
has been a devoted and diligent member, offering up all that he learns
willingly and spontaneously and bouncing back from criticism and
flamings with good humor. ALKA would not be the same without him.
Bert Olton
Bert Olton
http://www.pitt.edu/~jegst61/shoreframes.html
I seem to remember an early interview with one of the archaeologists
involved stating that he shook his head in discouragement as he realized
that the inscription would stir up an incorrect and misguided media
blitz. The interview might be on the site "The Heroic Age"...
Bert Olton
Grethe Bachmann
Heather Rose Jones:
You seem a little astonished. Well - I just "popped up" with a humble
question in a NG recently welcoming every new member, who would like to
participate.
About Arthur/Artognov/Arthognou :
Who has decided what´s right or wrong?
Whenever do they agree what´s right or wrong anyway?
As far as I know the discussion goes on and on around the Arthur-stuff.
Artognov/Arthognou might be a latin version of Arthur/Uther.
Another name-example from ancient times: Rurik = Hraerik, Haarek, Hárekr,
Raerik .
You wrote: "A lot of people have never let the facts stand in the way of
Arthur mania."
Facts! But we´re talking about a LEGEND! Is it possible to handle a legend
with facts? My fantasy and my creativity will not stand in the way for my
interest in the Arthur-legend - which of course belongs to all of us -
scholar or non-scholar - and no matter how we spell or express ourselves.
Grethe Bachmann.
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3B7D555E...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
Grethe Bachmann
GB
"Bert Olton" <arto...@redsuspenders.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3B7D99AF...@redsuspenders.com...
Grethe Bachmann
sword to me.
Of course I meant that I would not allow a limitation of my fantasy and
creativity.
GB
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3B7D555E...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
Christopher Gwinn
> Artognov/Arthognou might be a latin version of Arthur/Uther.
>
Artognouos (the proper nominative form) is Brittonic and means
"Bear-knower". It is not directly related to the name Arthur, though they
may both contain the element Arto- "bear".
- Chris Gwinn
richard wardle
the Bear", This kinda leads on to what Gildas had to say about Cuneglassus
who "Drove the chariot of the Bear"
The more "research" I do on Arthur and his times the more I am leaning to
"Arthur" being some sort of "Title/adopted name/nickname" Does not make it
any easier to fined or place him though."The deeper one digs the more
Rubbish one digs up" ;>)) Fun though!
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Joe Jefferson
>
> >the closest to this one is king coal.
> The merry old soul?
> And when did this one reign?
> You are joking.........aren't you?
According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, King Coel reigned at around the same
time as the emperor Diocletian, which puts him near the end of the third
century or right at the beginning of the fourth. Colchester was
supposedly named for him.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
greywolf
<jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>greywolf wrote:
>>
>> >the closest to this one is king coal.
>> The merry old soul?
>> And when did this one reign?
>> You are joking.........aren't you?
>
>According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, King Coel reigned at around the same
>time as the emperor Diocletian, which puts him near the end of the third
>century or right at the beginning of the fourth. Colchester was
>supposedly named for him.
But that would an entirely different person to "king coal".......
Joe Jefferson
A different person, or just a different spelling?
greywolf
<jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>greywolf wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:15:10 -0700, Joe Jefferson
>> <jjst...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >greywolf wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >the closest to this one is king coal.
>> >> The merry old soul?
>> >> And when did this one reign?
>> >> You are joking.........aren't you?
>> >
>> >According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, King Coel reigned at around the same
>> >time as the emperor Diocletian, which puts him near the end of the third
>> >century or right at the beginning of the fourth. Colchester was
>> >supposedly named for him.
>>
>> But that would an entirely different person to "king coal".......
>
>A different person, or just a different spelling?
My point being that spelling is _most_ important when discussing
"historical" figures otherwise it can lead to huge misinterpretations.
John Greenall
Whoever Arthnou was is a mystery, he isn't listed in the history of the
kings of britain.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a
myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
Gilbert Ryle (1900-76) British philosopher.
"Bert Olton" <arto...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in message
news:3B7D9699...@redsuspenders.com...
Ellis
King Coal was in my Welsh history books about the dominant industry in South
Wales throughout the latter part of the C19th. I believe that Coel Hen was
a king and would translate quite nicely as Old King Coel (Cole) - as to his
temprement and the abilities of his musical trios I know nothing.
Steffan
"greywolf" <ask...@answerin.NG> wrote in message
news:qhuuntgag06quvigh...@4ax.com...
David Cole
"Ellis" <ell...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1APf7.9915$0L6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> In my nursery rhyme books it was always Old King Cole (as in Nat K C) and
> King Coal was in my Welsh history books about the dominant industry in
South
> Wales throughout the latter part of the C19th. I believe that Coel Hen
was
> a king and would translate quite nicely as Old King Coel (Cole) - as to
his
> temprement and the abilities of his musical trios I know nothing.
believe that Cole is actually a name derived from the French meaning
Dark/swarthy
Regards
David
Joe Jefferson
Only if you're speaking about modern events. Spelling was only
standardized fairly recently. Older texts display quite a wide variation
in the spelling of names. For example, Shakespeare's King Lear is very
clearly the same person as Geoffrey's King Leir. Equally, the legendary
Greek minstrel Orpheus became the medieval knight Sir Orfeo. And
comentaries on Niccolo Machiavelli often show variations such as
"Macchiaveghi" (William Thomas, ca. 1550), "Nicholas Machiavell" (James
Bovey, ca. 1642), and "Nicholas Machiavel" (Edward Dacre, 1640).
In this particular instance, I have no idea who "King Coal" is, but it
wouldn't surprise my in the least if the "Old King Cole" of the nursury
rhyme was a reference to Geoffrey's Coel.
richard wardle
<1APf7.9915$0L6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
>In my nursery rhyme books it was always Old King Cole (as in Nat K C) and
>King Coal was in my Welsh history books about the dominant industry in
South
>Wales throughout the latter part of the C19th. I believe that Coel Hen was
>a king and would translate quite nicely as Old King Coel (Cole) - as to his
>temprement and the abilities of his musical trios I know nothing.
>
>Steffan
>
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
>"greywolf" <ask...@answerin.NG> wrote in message
richard wardle
King Cole = Old King Cole, and Colechester is apparrentley named after him.
The Welsh Geneologies have varius ways of spelling his name, and many
others!!! Makes tracing particular people dueced difficult ,what!!! ;>))
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
>Joe of Castle Jefferson
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Bert, the nicest thing anyone here as ever said of me. hehe.
>
> Whoever Arthnou was is a mystery, he isn't listed in the history of the
> kings of britain.
Which isn't at all surprising -- the vast majority of people whose names
come down to us scratched on pieces of slate, lead, tile, stone, or
pottery were "nobodies". While the context of the inscription may
affect the likelihood that the person was prominent in their day (e.g.,
fancy stone memorials are more likely to refer to prominent people than
names scratched on a piece of drying pottery), if you take an
inscription at random, the chances that we have any surviving
corroborating evidence for that individual's existence and status are
pretty small.
At which I, at least, am delighted, since history composed only of kings
is boring.
John Greenall
But it was on paper, a guess if i wrote it on a wall ide be remembered in
500 years time.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a
myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
Gilbert Ryle (1900-76) British philosopher.
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3B7FF1E7...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
Joe Jefferson
>
> When I where at school I was forever writing "John was ere" everywhere.
>
> But it was on paper, a guess if i wrote it on a wall ide be remembered in
> 500 years time.
It's probably a good thing you didn't though. It might have annoyed the
school officials.
--
Graham Nowland
> the vast majority of people whose names
> come down to us scratched on pieces of slate, lead, tile, stone, or
> pottery were "nobodies".
Perhaps you could might give us one or two other examples of insciptions on
slate in the period, especially any which, like the "nobody" Artognou at
Tintagel, include a link to a possible king.
Regards
Graham
Christopher Gwinn
> > come down to us scratched on pieces of slate, lead, tile, stone, or
> > pottery were "nobodies".
>
> Perhaps you could might give us one or two other examples of insciptions
on
> slate in the period, especially any which, like the "nobody" Artognou at
> Tintagel, include a link to a possible king.
What exactly is the "possible link" that you see here?
- Chris Gwinn
John Greenall
everyone was fighting to be a somebody.
Doesn't the legend of arthur tell a story of a nobody who became somebody?.
Strange then how the only thing to come from the dark ages, in 4th-5th
century is the legend of king arthur?.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a
myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
Gilbert Ryle (1900-76) British philosopher.
"Graham Nowland" <gcno...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3B908A9F...@bigpond.com...
Graham Nowland
> What exactly is the "possible link" that you see here?
The University of Glasgow expert at Tintagel translates the scratching: "Pater
Coliavificit Artognov", as: "Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, has had
this built".
The research team seem to be divided about whether "Artognou" could possibly
refer to Arthur, but one of them reads the word as "known as a bear." They
indicate that they believe the writer was a high status individual.
The fact is a matrilinear descent is described on the slate, and both names
written have a resemblance to two major dux type figures (Arthur and Coel).
Whoever Artognou actually was, the mother of his child descended from someone
important, possibly a king, possibly Coel Hen, if you allow for a Gallic
Latin spelling variation.
The scratching appears to be one of two inscriptions, the major one of which
is unreadable because the slate was broken off. from what can still be seen,
this lost inscription seems more formal and professionally engraved.
The scratched Latin on the other hand, looks more like casual grafiitti. It
does not come across as someone writing his own name. In fact I think that can
be ruled out.
One possibility that has occured to me, a mere amateur of course, is that the
slate writer felt the information already on the slate did not tell the full
story.
Maybe the "official" wording on the slate told something about the small stone
building it was supposed once to have been attached to, as a kind of plate.
The Glasgow team have already publicly speculated about the late being just
such a plate, I learned this week.
Whatever the "official" wording on it said, not long after a literate and
possibly high status person, perhaps a young visitor to Tintagel, scratched
the Artognou information. "Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, has had
this built".
The Glasgow team say it is possibly written by a Gaulish hand, the style of
writing is certainly 6th century, a date confirmed by surrounding fragments of
6th century Mediterranean pottery already well known from the Tintagel site.
Also found nearby was the remains of the only Spanish glass flagon known from
this period of Britain's history.
The Dark Age site can certainly no longer be regarded as a religious centre as
was believed for the last 70 or so years following an exploratory dig. It is
now considered a possibly a rich residence and port for a Dumnonian noble at
the very least.
The flagon must be the first indication of British dark age trade with Spain,
which is en route to the Meditteranean by ship of course. The writing is also
the first secular writing of the period to be found in Britain, the team
claims. I think that must mean if you rule out formal chiselled inscriptions.
All this means that unless the slate itself is forged, as was claimed when
unearthed in 1998, it and the associated finds are a major breakthrough. I
think another dig is likely.
The slate can be viewed at:
http://www.camelotcastle.com/Inscription.htm
****Just as a postscript: Arthur and Coel can already be tentatively and very
interestingly linked anyway. This is through the passing mention of Arthur in
the Goddodin poem and the possibility that Coel was a dux type leader in the
Goddodin region. I find a strong conjectural dynamic is created when you also
consider the Goddodin's connections with North Wales and Powys through
Cunnedda, who is himself supposed to be related to Coel.
Surely by now there has been a properly considered paper about the
implications of the slate find. Does anyone know where it is?
Regards
Graham
Heather Rose Jones
Sure, no problem. Since I specified "slate, lead, tile, stone, or
pottery", I'll maintain my right to pull examples from any of those categories.
Pottery
Names of potters (pretty much, by definition, "nobodies", inscribed on
their work, found at Montans in Aquitania -- "Aurelios" (with the
obvious royal name-twin), "Cunasus" (multiple early kings with names
beginning in "Cuna-" or "Cuno-", take Cunobelinos for example),
"Matugenus" (just for variety, let's go with the legendary king
Mathonwy, from the Mabinogi).
Lead
Names inscribed on lead "defixiones" or "curse tablets" found at Bath --
these genre of tablet typically curses a thief or personal enemy, and it
seems reasonable to suppose that these were "ordinary people" because
someone with social or political power would have more direct means of
satisfaction available: "Cunomolius" (see above comment on names in
"Cuno-"), "Louernisca" (compare the early Welsh king the modern form of
whose name is Llywarch Hen).
Stone
The wife of a 3rd century centurion (which probably counts as "nobody"
for this purpose), who shows up on a tombstone, shares the name of the
famous queen Boudicca. Another 3rd century tombstone is dedicated to a
soldier named "Catavignes" (who shares the "Cata-" / "Catu-" prototheme
with several early Welsh kings, such as Cadwallon, Cadfan).
In each of these cases, the "nobody" shares the protothem (first
element) of their given name with at least one historic or legendary
king -- the same (possible) relationship between the names "Artognou"
and "Arthur".
Heather Rose Jones
>
> In the destruction that was the early dark ages, everybody was a nobody, and
> everyone was fighting to be a somebody.
>
> Doesn't the legend of arthur tell a story of a nobody who became somebody?.
>
> Strange then how the only thing to come from the dark ages, in 4th-5th
> century is the legend of king arthur?.
While we don't have vast floods of information from the 4-5th centuries,
we certainly have more than just the legend of King Arthur!
Christopher Gwinn
> "Louernisca" (compare the early Welsh king the modern form of
> whose name is Llywarch Hen).
Llywarch is actually not related to Louern- (which is "fox" in
Gallo-Brittonic) - Llywarch is from *Lugu-marcos "Lugus' Horse".
- Chris Gwinn
Christopher Gwinn
> The research team seem to be divided about whether "Artognou" could
possibly
> refer to Arthur, but one of them reads the word as "known as a bear." They
> indicate that they believe the writer was a high status individual.
If they are divided, that proves that a portion of the reearch team doesn't
know very much about Celtic linguistics. Art- is a common element in Celtic
names and offers us no direct connection to Arthur whatsoever. *Artognouos
should mean rather "Bear knower", I think.
> The fact is a matrilinear descent is described on the slate, and both
names
> written have a resemblance to two major dux type figures (Arthur and
Coel).
This is the most recent reading (from the Celtic Inscribed Stones Project
website)
PATERN[--] COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOU COL[I] FICIT
Translation:
Artognou (PN) descendent of Patern[us] Colus(PN) made (this). Colus(PN) made
(this).
There seems to be two inscribers here, Artognou[os] and Colus - and aui may
actually mean "grandson of", as in Irish usage. Where do you see matrilinear
descent?
Paternus Colus
|
[ --------]
|
Artognou[os] (inscriber 1) + Colus (inscriber 2)
I can assure you that Colus (Coli is the genitive) is not related to Welsh
Coil (Coel) - a form that cannot be derived from Colus.
> Whoever Artognou actually was, the mother of his child descended from
someone
> important, possibly a king, possibly Coel Hen, if you allow for a Gallic
> Latin spelling variation.
What Gallic Latin spelling variation would that be?
- Chris Gwinn
Graham Nowland
> >What Gallic Latin spelling variation would that be?
On reading that the Glasgow team say/said Gallic style Latin and I see Col or
Coll on the slate and conjecture some sort of spelling variations on that word.
I haven't got any obligation to do enormous amounts of research before I write.
I am also quite happy to be corrected if I conjecture that Col or Coll might
have been written for Coel and there is a good reason for not accepting that.
In a sense my conjectures on this NG are part of my private research.
On the matrilinear line of thought, they translated it "Artognou, father of a
descendant of Coll, has had this built". The translator is therefore suggesting
that Artognou is not a descendat of Coll himself. Therefore it must be the
mother that descended from Coll. QED a matrilenear descent.
Perhaps the Paternus idea you have put up takes me forward.. I will go and have
a look at the web site.
I don't really care about any specific idea about the slate, only what the truth
might be.
Incidentally I have lost the web address of your poetry siteand would appreciate
if you put it up here again.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> Sure, no problem. Since I specified "slate, lead, tile, stone, or
> pottery", I'll maintain my right to pull examples from any of those categories.
>
> Pottery
> ......
> Lead
>
> ..
> Stone
> ....etc etc
But no slate I notice...... whihc is what I specified. The Glasgow team does say it
is is unique in a number of ways.. perhaps a written inscription on slate is
actually unique for the period. I find it a little hard to belive - it's such a
tempting material to write on.
Still thanks for the information. It's very interesting.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> Sure, no problem. Since I specified "slate, lead, tile, stone, or
> pottery", I'll maintain my right to pull examples from any of those categories.
>
> Pottery
Graham Nowland
> > Art- is a common element in Celtic
> names and offers us no direct connection to Arthur whatsoever. *Artognouos
> should mean rather "Bear knower", I think.
>
I think I said resemblance between the names rather than direct connection.
If you say Art means bear in this context , and elsewhere you say 'Arthmael is
quite clearly "Bear Prince"' then there must a common meaning in Art and Arth
names, both from "bear". Can you confirm that? If so what is the exact
differance between Art and Arth, apart from the sound?
PATERN[--] COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOU COL[I] FICIT
> Translation:
> Artognou (PN) descendent of Patern[us] Colus(PN) made (this). Colus(PN) made
> (this).
>
This meaning is completely different to the Glasgow team's version I read,
perhaps they have updated their view since. Certainly I can now see the extra
scratching on the slate sketch that might be an n in Paternus.
> I can assure you that Colus (Coli is the genitive) is not related to Welsh
> Coil (Coel) - a form that cannot be derived from Colus.
I can also see that declension now. In what I had read before the i in Coli had
been rendered as an l, hence Coll.
In other words I have been misled. Thanks for the redirection.
Regards
Graham
Simon Ward
> John Greenall wrote:
> >
> > In the destruction that was the early dark ages, everybody was a nobody,
and
> > everyone was fighting to be a somebody.
> >
> > Doesn't the legend of arthur tell a story of a nobody who became
somebody?.
> >
> > Strange then how the only thing to come from the dark ages, in 4th-5th
> > century is the legend of king arthur?.
>
> While we don't have vast floods of information from the 4-5th centuries,
> we certainly have more than just the legend of King Arthur!
I won't disagree with your words, Heather, but John's post is one of the
best for ages. Perhaps if he changed 'only' to 'major', he might be said to
have summed up the collective search perfectly.
Regards
Simon
Heather Rose Jones
Sorry -- in working through a large number of names in a short time, I
was thinking of Old Welsh forms of Llywarch with "Lou-".
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Heather Rose Jones wrote:
>
> > Sure, no problem. Since I specified "slate, lead, tile, stone, or
> > pottery", I'll maintain my right to pull examples from any of those categories.
> >
> > Pottery
> > ......
> > Lead
> >
> > ..
> > Stone
> > ....etc etc
>
> But no slate I notice...... whihc is what I specified.
But it wasn't what I specified. And in the larger context of "things
that names were inscribed on", slate strikes me as highly unlikely to
have been reserved for inscriptions of noble or royal names. If we have
names of "nobodies" commonly inscribed on stone (the most "formal" of
the available inscription materials), it is quite reasonable to consider
it unlikely that less "formal" materials would have been reserved for
_more_ "formal" purposes. I believe I made my point, even though I
didn't jump through your specific hoop.
John Greenall
> we certainly have more than just the legend of King Arthur!
You might know of other influential poeple related to the arthurian legend,
such as ambrosius, hengist, vortigern, merlin?, uther guenavere.
OK if we asked any bod on the street "who was vortigern" they would not know
who that was, but they would know the story of king arthur, if just a bit of
it.
due to books and films arthurs story is well known enough, yes there is more
to the 4th-5th century than just arthur, he and his storys is the best
known.
it is still a story of a nobody that became somebody, a warrior that became
king, and remembered in oral myths and legend.
There where many other historical people who lived at that time who are just
as important, but they are just historical entries in arthurs legend. but
still just as important in the story itself. although never hardly mentioned
in great detail.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a
myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
Gilbert Ryle (1900-76) British philosopher.
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3B919F87...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
Graham Nowland
Heather Rose Jones wrote:
> Graham Nowland wrote:
> >>
> > But no slate I notice...... whihc is what I specified.
>
> But it wasn't what I specified.
If I recall rightly (your message has already gone) you originally said words to the
effect that almost all or most examples of inscriptions on slate, lead etc are about or
by nobodies.
I then asked you a specific question about the examples of other inscriptions on slate
in the period.
You rather eccentrically claimed a right not to answer the question specifically and
gave expales of pottery and lead etc.
I now reframe the question and add one
Are there any other examples of inscriptions on slate in that period?
Silence will be interpreted as a don't know and a successful calling of bluff..
When are you running for senate?
Regards
Graham
Eramon1
>If I recall rightly (your message has already gone) you originally said words
>to the
>effect that almost all or most examples of inscriptions on slate, lead etc
>are about or
>by nobodies.
>
>I then asked you a specific question about the examples of other inscriptions
>on slate
>in the period.
>
>You rather eccentrically claimed a right not to answer the question
>specifically and
>gave expales of pottery and lead etc.
>
>I now reframe the question and add one
>
>Are there any other examples of inscriptions on slate in that period?
>
>Silence will be interpreted as a don't know and a successful calling of
>bluff..
>
>When are you running for senate?
>
>Regards
>Graham
>
Why don't you make it really tough and ask if there are any other inscriptions
on *that specific slate*?
-Eric
Adrian Gilbert
willing to tear apart Wilson and Blackett for daring to suggest that King
Arthur II was from Glamorgan, they seem only too willing to embrace Geoffrey
Ashe's strange hypothesis that he could be "Riothamus". Never mind that this
personage (if he ever existed) fought in Germany for and not against the
Romans and doesn't seem to have opposed the Saxons coming into Britain.
There is also a willingness to accept as authentic and possibly "Arthurian"
this piece of slate from Cornwall with the name "Artognou" scrawled on it,
even though this slate is almost certainly a forgery put there by earlier
excavators of the site. That's why there are no other instances of 6th
century inscribed slates found in Britain.
On the other hand the stone found in Wales by W. & B. with the legend "Rex
Artorius fili Mauricius" is totally ignored; as indeed is the electrum cross
with a mounted equestrian figure at its centre and the legend "Pro anima
Artorius". From all sorts of sources we can trace "Artorius fili Mauricius"
as the same person as "Athrwys map Meurig". Is it because he was Welsh that
he is unacceptable as the "King Arthur" of legend? I find. repugnant in the
extreme this double-standard, where scholars will embrace ephemeral figures
like Riothamus or "Artognou" whilst ignoring the possibility that a real
character with real remnants in the form of stones etc. could be the King
Arthur that we all seek.
Adrian Gilbert.
Graham Nowland
>
> Why don't you make it really tough and ask if there are any other inscriptions
> on *that specific slate*?
No I'm scscscscared. Heather could be thinking up a way to destroy me right now.
Actually, joking aside, I can see others but which one did you have in mind, the
big official looking one, the scribbly bit to the upper right of the Artognou one,
or the Col ficit bit down the bottom right?
Do you know something?
Regards
Graham
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Heather Rose Jones wrote:
>
> > Graham Nowland wrote:
> > >>
> > > But no slate I notice...... whihc is what I specified.
> >
> > But it wasn't what I specified.
>
> If I recall rightly (your message has already gone) you originally said words to the
> effect that almost all or most examples of inscriptions on slate, lead etc are about or
> by nobodies.
The precise quote is, [in response to an observation that no one named
"Artognou" is listed in the history of the kings of Britain] "Which
isn't at all surprising -- the vast majority of people whose names
come down to us scratched on pieces of slate, lead, tile, stone, or
pottery were 'nobodies'."
That is, my observation was that the majority of names in surviving
inscriptions from this period were not those of socially or politically
important people.
> I then asked you a specific question about the examples of other inscriptions on slate
> in the period.
>
> You rather eccentrically claimed a right not to answer the question specifically and
> gave expales of pottery and lead etc.
I don't see why it's "eccentric" to maintain that I'm only morally
required to support the claims that I've actually made -- not to support
claims that I haven't made.
> I now reframe the question and add one
>
> Are there any other examples of inscriptions on slate in that period?
>
> Silence will be interpreted as a don't know and a successful calling of bluff..
The ability of your little word games to affect my personal reputation
is not something I will lose sleep over. If you choose to dance your
little happy dance and snigger because I don't choose to jump through
your hoops, I assure you it will reflect much more on you than on me.
If I happen to stumble on something relevant, I'll let you know, but
I've already spent more time digging up citations for this thread than I
really ought, and I've got more productive ways to spend my time at the moment.
Heather Rose Jones
>
> On a more general note: I notice that whilst members of this newsgroup are
> willing to tear apart Wilson and Blackett for daring to suggest that King
> Arthur II was from Glamorgan, they seem only too willing to embrace Geoffrey
> Ashe's strange hypothesis that he could be "Riothamus".
Nope. I consider the Riothamus thing a red herring, and yet another
attempt to co-opt every significant individual from the relevant period
for the Matter of Britain, even when it requires ignoring or distorting
the evidence at hand. As in a variety of cases, tying Riothamus in with
Arthur requires turning "Riothamus" into some sort of title or
description rather than accepting it at face value as the personal name
of someone who is not Arthur.
> There is also a willingness to accept as authentic and possibly "Arthurian"
> this piece of slate from Cornwall with the name "Artognou" scrawled on it,
> even though this slate is almost certainly a forgery put there by earlier
> excavators of the site.
I know of no reason for supposing the slate to be a forgery, but I know
of no reason for supposing that it is "Arthurian". These are two
entirely separate issues.
Simon Ward
Adrian Gilbert <Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9mvufj$dbq$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
At the risk of misrepresenting the objections of other members of the
newsgroup (god forbid) major problems with the work of W&B appear to be the
lack of access to their source material and also discrepencies with the
dates of genealogies (placing Athrwys map Meurig in the 560's) against the
normally accepted dating (490s to 520's ish). I have sympathies with both of
these objections, although I note that work has been done (Snyder) with the
Llandaff Charters which is to be commended.
Having said this, I still wish that independent archaeological work be done
on some of the places identified by W&B - particularly Mynnyd Baedan and
Llong Borth. Despite the strategic and tactical problems that arise when
considering battles with Saxons in Wales, I would still like to know more
about these sites.
Personally, I have no objection to an Arthur prototype being Welsh.
Riothamus I discount, although find his battle significantly placed (not in
Germany but in near to Bourges, southern France I think) for some kind of
resonance with Avalon.
As for Artognou, I found Graham's accounts of the researches intriguing.
Personally, I have no objection to slate being used as a medium for
inscriptions, although I would guess that it would not be for the high-borne
the manner of this particular example appears to bear out. I would like to
know your reasoning/evidence for saying that it is "almost certainly a
forgery put there by earlier excavators of the site". My guess would be that
this does not explain why we find no examples of slate inscriptions, rather
that slate is not exactly long lasting compared to stone.
Regards
Simon
Graham Nowland
> The precise quote is, [in response to an observation that no one named
> "Artognou" is listed in the history of the kings of Britain] "Which
> isn't at all surprising -- the vast majority of people whose names
> come down to us scratched on pieces of slate, lead, tile, stone, or
> pottery were 'nobodies'."
> I don't see why it's "eccentric" to maintain that I'm only morally
> required to support the claims that I've actually made -- not to support
> claims that I haven't made.
Thank you for re-supplying the quote, which has fallen off my browser
(I really will have to change my news reader)
It confirms my recollection that you heavily implied there were other slate inscriptions in
the period.
I am surprised at the tone of your response and at the word "morally".What kind of morality
is it that allows evasion of a direct question asked in the pursuit of the truth. Only a
politican's morality to my knowledge, which is why I made the joke about you running for
senate.
You are very quick to correct people when they stray from the straight and narrow in what is
actually a leisure news group. Personally I always find you interventions very valuable and
well thought out, if sometimes a little sweeping and peremptory.
But. because you have assumed the role of highly knowledgable establishment watchdog, it does
seem reasonable to be able ask you direct questions to get more information and expect not be
fobbed off.
It also seems reasonable to be able use a bit of humour now and again.
> The ability of your little word games to affect my personal reputation
> is not something I will lose sleep over. If you choose to dance your
> little happy dance and snigger because I don't choose to jump through
> your hoops, I assure you it will reflect much more on you than on me.
Nice vitriol. But I don't feel I have any personal reputation to lose.
Regrettably you still haven't answered the question about any other slates and claim pressure
of time, which is understandable. I am left to assume your staement was sweeping and
unsupported, and that there are probably no other slates in the period.
Pity, for purposes of comparison, they would have been relevant, in the light of the amount
of discussion the allegedly unique Artognou slate is generating here.
If you feel it is personally damaging to your reputation if I press you for a straight answer
or tease you mildly, I will of course desist.
In the end though this is not an academic forum where the establishment sets the rules. It is
an unmoderated news group open to all and one has to take a certain amount of rough and
tumble. It's part of the fun. Think of poor old Adrian and what he has endured.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> I know of no reason for supposing the slate to be a forgery, but I know
> of no reason for supposing that it is "Arthurian". These are two
> entirely separate issues.
One reason for keeping an open mind is that someone confessed to it. His
confession was not accepted because the writing was claimed (by the finders I
think) to have been beyond his ability.
However, he appears to have had the opportunity. The exact location of the find is
confused by the fact that the archaleogist were reworking an area excavated about
10 years ago. This is precisly the time the self-alleged-faker claimed to have
planted it.
I do find it a little hard to understand a motivation for his faking the find, or
to confessing to faking it, or to pretending to have faked it if he didn't.
Whatever really happened, the fact is that the claim of faking, even after the
rebuttal, leaves a nagging doubt.
This is not helped by the fact that information about any other inscribed slates
of the period (if indeed any exist) is very difficult to come by.
On the second point, the research team themselves made Arthurian associations and
the site itself is inextricably associated with Arthur in legend. The fact that a
site associated in this way with Arthur yields a slate carrying a name resembling
Arthur, and possibly having the same linguistic root, is sure to generate
interest, even if it is only wishful thinking.
I agree with you by the way on Riothamas. It is obviously a distraction from the
central questions of Arthurian historicity but quite an interesting one. The
vagaries and errors of the human mind of those who probe the past are themselves
facts of a kind don't you think?
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> There is also a willingness to accept as authentic and possibly "Arthurian"
> this piece of slate from Cornwall with the name "Artognou" scrawled on it,
> On the other hand the stone found in Wales by W. & B. with the legend "Rex
> Artorius fili Mauricius" is totally ignored;
Regarding the slate, and leaving aside the very interesting question of its
authenticity, there seem to be difficulties with the Latin grammar. In my
opinion, for what it is worth, this grammar issue can be to some extent be put
aside because of the graffiti nature of the slate. The extensive damage makes it
impossible to be certain of anything.
Regarding your Arthur II stone, the picture in my copy is wrongly captioned and
appears to show the Arthur I stone.
However I assume it is formally engraved rather than graffiti. In that case one
would expect accurate grammar. This is why I am concerned that "Athrwys" is
rendered as "Artorius". My Latin is really primitive but shouldn't there be a
latinised form of the Brythonic Arthrwys, something like Athroius, rather than a
direct switch to an established Latin name?
In Nennius for example, and the Welsh Annals, the spelling in a Latin context is
"Arthur" at least in the printed version I have. Perhaps I do no know enough
about these subtleties to understand this point properly.
I suspect, however, there may also be a difficulty with way the name "Mauricius"
is declined in that particular sentence on the stone.
With that reservation and taking the stone as genuine dark ages, or early
medieval , what does it add? The fact that Athrwys was son of Meurig (Mauricius)
in an important Gwent (South Wales) dynasty already seems to be well known from
genealogies and other documents.
I think you must already know that in the Goddodin poem, AD 600, an Athrwys is
mentioned.
When the crack band of Northern war horsemen hurtled down from Edinburgh to
Catterick, in Yorkshire, to attack an alliance of Saxons Irish and Picts, a
contingent from Gwynedd (North Wales) rode with them.
Among them was a Gwynned warrior who... well I'll just quote the verse
Verse 19 The Gododdin (by the Goddodin bard Aneirin, translation by Joseph
Clancy)
In the great hall I drank wine and mead.
Many were his spears; in the clash of men he fashioned a feast for eagles.
When Cadwal charged in the green of dawn a cry went up wherever he came.
He would leave shields shattered, in splinters.
Stiff spears this splitter would slash in battle, ripping the front rank.
Sywno's son, a wizard foresaw it, sold his life to purchase a high reputation.
He cut with a keen-edged blade, he slaughtered both Athrwys and Affrel.
As agreed on, he aimed to attack: he fashioned carcasses of men brave in battle,
charged in
Gwynedd's front line.
The passage is typical of this particular poem in extolling the deeds of the
three hundred warriros in the warband by referring to some in the recent past.
The Kings of Gwynedd, I understand, were at odds with those of Demetia, and I
think the poem remembers some such engagement.
Would Aneurin be referring to a fatal battle in the rivalry between Gwynedd and
Demetia.
This Athrwys of course is not killed by Mordred, but he may have been in the
right place at the right time (for a Gwynnedd versus Demetia struggle).
In the last verse but one, the poem also mentions Arthur, (spelled like that) as
is well known. So if the Athrwys remembered in the Gododdin poem is your
Athrwys, the historical Arthur may have been someone else.
I would certainly like to know more about your locations, especially for
Baedan/Badon. I also think some sites you have mentioned should be excavated and
I will definitely visit the area when I am next in Britain. (When will that be I
wonder?)
The big problem with the W & B theory is the dating, as Simon points out. I
think it has something to do with the precise way W & B has shifted the
Aetius/Aegidus letter forward thirty years or so. I have tried to understand and
get at the source of my unease but each time I approach it my head swims with
numbers.
I'll get to the bottom of it eventaully.
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the Artgognous slate need not itself clash
with W & Bs general Athrwys theory. That if the slate is genuine, of course, and
I have my doubts.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> I can assure you that Colus (Coli is the genitive) is not related to Welsh
> Coil (Coel) - a form that cannot be derived from Colus.
But Coel Hen (the old) became, in popular use, Old King Cole. Sometime in the
middle ages his name became wrongly associated with Colchester. So could you
just possibly be wrong in saying that Coel, itself a Celtic form of Coelius, or
even Coelestius, cannot be rendered as Col or Coli.
Can you comfortably say a non formal and semi-literate environment such as slate
graffiti will accurately mirror correct linguistic rules?
>This is the most recent reading (from the Celtic Inscribed Stones Project
>website)
>PATERN[--] COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOU COL[I] FICIT
>Translation:
>Artognou (PN) descendent of Patern[us] Colus(PN) made (this). Colus(PN) made
(this).
I notice the CISP has added letters in brackets on their reading to show the
latest conjectures. The added letters are not visible on the slate itself, so
are the noun cases guesswork? The slate might also be read a number of other
ways if you aren;t sure of the endings, Latin being what is.
The slate is broken with a number of words missing and the writing does not run
continuously as shown in the Latin above.
On to my next point.
So it could now be Patern(us) rather than the word father, which many experts
thought at first. Fascinating.
Northern genealogies show that about 370-380 a Paternus became the leader of the
Votadini of the North East Coast (later known as the Gododdin). Morris suggests
the emporor Valentine may have installed Paternus to establish the dynasty which
included Coel and which extended in the early fifth C to Wales, with Cunedda.
This makes three names on the slate which appear to resemble names of known or
mooted dux/guledig type characters. The slate appears to be giving information
about ancestral links between the three names. Can you confirm if you think this
statement is correct as far as it goes.
I notice from other sources that the two known historical characters with names
somewhat similar to the words on the slate, is Paternus and Coel, are linked
ancestrally through the Gododdin. The other one, Arthur, could just conceivably
be a Goddodin descendant too. (Mentioned in Goddodin poem, plus somewhat shaky
folk tradition)
Could you comment? Is the slate a fake or what?
Regards
Graham
saelen
souhaite une biographie en français
------
User of http://www.foorum.com/. The best tools for usenet searching.
Christopher Gwinn
"Graham Nowland" <gcno...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3B949524...@bigpond.com...
> Christopher Gwinn wrote:
>
> > I can assure you that Colus (Coli is the genitive) is not related to
Welsh
> > Coil (Coel) - a form that cannot be derived from Colus.
>
> But Coel Hen (the old) became, in popular use, Old King Cole. Sometime in
the
> middle ages his name became wrongly associated with Colchester. So could
you
> just possibly be wrong in saying that Coel, itself a Celtic form of
Coelius, or
> even Coelestius, cannot be rendered as Col or Coli.
Coelius should give a Welsh *Cwyl, not Coel, unless the name is some type of
learned borrowing - but that would not account for the earlier spelling of
Coil. The name appears to be native, I think.
Old King Cole is definitely not an assured development out of Cil Hen - in
fact there is evidence that the figure of Old King Cole is derived from a
wealthy 16th century English clothier named Colebrook, who was also
popularly called Old Cole.
> Can you comfortably say a non formal and semi-literate environment such as
slate
> graffiti will accurately mirror correct linguistic rules?
People wrote phonetically back then, as a general rule - especially in
regards to foreign names.
> Northern genealogies show that about 370-380 a Paternus became the leader
of the
> Votadini of the North East Coast (later known as the Gododdin). Morris
suggests
> the emporor Valentine may have installed Paternus to establish the dynasty
which
> included Coel and which extended in the early fifth C to Wales, with
Cunedda.
>
> This makes three names on the slate which appear to resemble names of
known or
> mooted dux/guledig type characters. The slate appears to be giving
information
> about ancestral links between the three names. Can you confirm if you
think this
> statement is correct as far as it goes.
I think the similarities are purely coincidental.
> I notice from other sources that the two known historical characters with
names
> somewhat similar to the words on the slate, is Paternus and Coel, are
linked
> ancestrally through the Gododdin. The other one, Arthur, could just
conceivably
> be a Goddodin descendant too. (Mentioned in Goddodin poem, plus somewhat
shaky
> folk tradition)
I don't think we can say for certain yet where Arthur sprang up originally.
I am not even convinced that he was real.
> Could you comment? Is the slate a fake or what?
I don't think it's a fake personally.
- Chris Gwinn
Ellis
"Adrian Gilbert" <Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9mvufj$dbq$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> willing to tear apart Wilson and Blackett for daring to suggest that King
> Arthur II was from Glamorgan,
I don't think it's because they place him in Glamorgan, but how they arrive
at that conclusion.
they seem only too willing to embrace Geoffrey
> Ashe's strange hypothesis that he could be "Riothamus".
I haven't seen much evidence of that. Indeed, I always felt that he was
dismissed by the majority of regulars here. Maybe I just got the wrong
impression
Never mind that this
> personage (if he ever existed) fought in Germany for and not against the
> Romans and doesn't seem to have opposed the Saxons coming into Britain.
>
> There is also a willingness to accept as authentic and possibly
"Arthurian"
> this piece of slate from Cornwall with the name "Artognou" scrawled on it,
> even though this slate is almost certainly a forgery put there by earlier
> excavators of the site. That's why there are no other instances of 6th
> century inscribed slates found in Britain.
Postings on this thread prove otherwise surely. Everything I have seen and
heard elsewhere seems to doubt that this stone, even if authentic, refers to
king Arthur.
>
> On the other hand the stone found in Wales by W. & B. with the legend "Rex
> Artorius fili Mauricius" is totally ignored; as indeed is the electrum
cross
> with a mounted equestrian figure at its centre and the legend "Pro anima
> Artorius". From all sorts of sources we can trace "Artorius fili
Mauricius"
> as the same person as "Athrwys map Meurig".
W & B have hardly made it accessible, have they. Where is the report? (Apart
from the appendix to Holy Kingdom)
Are they available to be scrutinized by experts?
Is it because he was Welsh that
> he is unacceptable as the "King Arthur" of legend? I find. repugnant in
the
> extreme this double-standard, where scholars will embrace ephemeral
figures
> like Riothamus or "Artognou" whilst ignoring the possibility that a real
> character with real remnants in the form of stones etc. could be the King
> Arthur that we all seek.
Isn't that a little paranoid? Do you mean because he was Welsh / British /
Brythonic? Or because of your claim that he was native to that part of
Britain that is today Wales?
Steffan Ellis
amandine.lorca
saelen <christin...@laposte.net> a écrit dans le message :
200194-141...@foorum.com...
richard wardle
>On a more general note: I notice that whilst members of this newsgroup are
>willing to tear apart Wilson and Blackett for daring to suggest that King
>Arthur II was from Glamorgan, they seem only too willing to embrace
Geoffrey
>Ashe's strange hypothesis that he could be "Riothamus". Never mind that
this
>personage (if he ever existed) fought in Germany for and not against the
>Romans and doesn't seem to have opposed the Saxons coming into Britain.
>
the same as for Vortigern. However with little or nothing to prove
(conclusively) either way , you pays your money......
>There is also a willingness to accept as authentic and possibly "Arthurian"
>this piece of slate from Cornwall with the name "Artognou" scrawled on it,
>even though this slate is almost certainly a forgery put there by earlier
>excavators of the site. That's why there are no other instances of 6th
>century inscribed slates found in Britain.
>
The Arthurian connection of this slate has been dismissed with enough
authority many times. I find it baffleing that people still raise it. The
'only' connection with Arthur is Geoffreys ,and the possible dummnonian
hypotheses of Geraint, aka Llongborth.
>On the other hand the stone found in Wales by W. & B. with the legend "Rex
>Artorius fili Mauricius" is totally ignored; as indeed is the electrum
cross
>with a mounted equestrian figure at its centre and the legend "Pro anima
>Artorius". From all sorts of sources we can trace "Artorius fili Mauricius"
>as the same person as "Athrwys map Meurig". Is it because he was Welsh that
>he is unacceptable as the "King Arthur" of legend? I find. repugnant in
the
>extreme this double-standard, where scholars will embrace ephemeral figures
>like Riothamus or "Artognou" whilst ignoring the possibility that a real
>character with real remnants in the form of stones etc. could be the King
>Arthur that we all seek.
>
The problem here Adrian ,as many have said before(including me) ,is the
Apparrent complete unwillingness for B&W to let the stone and the cross
undergoe proper peer examination.I for one would be more than glad to have
the stone authenticated ,and the cross. If that is done then we can realy
say have more than a "theory", or of course the opposite, if they are not.
but at least we would know one way or the other.
>Adrian Gilbert.
>
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Adrian Gilbert
"richard wardle" <ric...@wadl.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9n8jdr$jih$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Arthurian connection of this slate has been dismissed with enough
> authority many times. I find it baffleing that people still raise it. The
> 'only' connection with Arthur is Geoffreys ,and the possible dummnonian
> hypotheses of Geraint, aka Llongborth.
>
generates so much interest when it is obviously a forgery.
[snipped]
> >
> The problem here Adrian ,as many have said before(including me) ,is the
> Apparrent complete unwillingness for B&W to let the stone and the cross
> undergoe proper peer examination.I for one would be more than glad to have
> the stone authenticated ,and the cross. If that is done then we can realy
> say have more than a "theory", or of course the opposite, if they are not.
> but at least we would know one way or the other.
>
great lengths trying to get it authenticated but the academics (particularly
of Cardiff University) just weren't interested. They even brought the stone
up to London and had it put on display for a couple of months. Now they are
just plain pissed off and I don't blame them. I have seen the stone and it
looks to me like it may have originally been the lid from a Roman stone
coffin that has been reused as a memorial stone. However, I am not an expert
on these things. Like you I am sorry that the stone and cross have not
received the epert attention they deserve but I do understand something of
the circumstances that has brought this unhappy state of affairs about.
Adrian Gilbert.
John Greenall
the minority.
Even today saxon rules, the institutions, historians all have there biased
opinions.
What do you think they mean when they say there is a conspirecy in wales to
rubbish there work, you not know that the prince of wales is English and a
Saxon (well german some would say).
Lets just say the institutioms like history places, the police and
indivisuals might not like what they are doing, weather it be true or false.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a
myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
Gilbert Ryle (1900-76) British philosopher.
"Ellis" <ell...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UOHl7.8547$592.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
richard wardle
least explore the possible authenticity of this. Were there problems with
the finding or digging or ownership of the site where the stone was found?,
which may explain some of the unwillingness to co-operate. I understand some
of those issues apply to the Cross, but as this is metal a meterlurgical
analysis could be made at least. The Archie who supervised the dig can
publish his notes at least for scrutiny, surely